P.K. ARJUNAN versus STATE OF KERALA

Citation: [2007] 3 S.C.R. 1042 · Decided: 14-03-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
P.K. ARJUNAN 
v. 
STA TE OF KERALA 
MARCH 14, 2007 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KATJU, JJ.] 
Kera/a Abkari Act; Ss. 55, 58 and 64: 
Contraband goods-Possession of large quantity of spirit by accused 
C appellant and others-Seizure by Police-Trial Court found accused guilty 
of committing crime under Section 55 of the Act and sentenced him 
accordingly-Affirmed by Sessions Court-Revision petition dismissed by 
High Court-On appeal, Held: In terms of Section 64 of the Act, presumption 
could be raised in regard to commission of offence in case contraband goods 
D found in possession of a person-The person in whose possession such goods 
found required to adduce sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption-A 
penal statute though requires to be construed strictly but a potential offence 
would be presumed to be non existing-However, when the statutory provisions 
are clear and unambiguous , the same would be given its due effect without 
taking recourse to any technical plea_:.!n terms of S.106 of the Evidence Act 
E also whoeyer has any special knowledge of fact, onus of proof in respect 
thereof lies on him-But accused failed to prove the same-Indian Evidence 
Act, 1872-Section 106-Constitution of India, 1950-Article 17. 
On the basis of information received from the Deputy Superintendent 
F of Police, the Circle Inspector conducted a raid in a house and found a large 
quantity of spirit, a contraband article, in the possession of the accused-
appellant and other accused persons, which was allegedly kept by them for 
manufacturing of arrack. Appellant and other two accused were prosecuted 
under Section 55 of the Kerala Abkari Act. The Judicial Magistrate found 
them guilty of committing the crime under Section 55 of the Act and sentenced 
G them to simple imprisonment of two years. Appeal against the order of the 
Judicial Magistrate was dismissed by the Court of Sessions and Revision 
petition was dismissed by the High Court. Hence the present appeal. 
Appellant conten~ed that in the body of the judgment of the Sessions 
H 
!042 
P.K. ARJUNAN v. ST A TE OF KERALA 
1043 
j 
Court, provisions of Section 55 of the Act had not been correctly reproduced A 
in so far as the words "transports, transits or possesses" after the words 
"imports, exports" and before the words "liquor or any intoxicating drug" 
were missing and presumably, only on that premise, notice was issued and 
leave was granted; that the High Court having found that the appellant was 
not the employee of another-accused, it was for the prosecution to show that B 
he was in conscious possession of the contraband article, spirit, punishable 
under Section 55(C) of the Act; and that, in any event, it was obligatory on 
the part of the prosecution to establish existence of mens rea on the part of 
J\ 
accused. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
c 
HELD:l.1. Section 64 of the Kerala Abkari Act raises a presumption 
in regard to commission of offence in certain cases. If, therefore, a person is 
found to be in possession of excise articles it is for him to adduce sufficient 
and cogent evidence to rebut the presumption. [Paras 7 and 8) [1046-D, E) 
D 
1.2. Provisions in the Act having regard to the subject matter dealt with 
thereby should be read in the context of Article 47 of the Constitution of India. 
Dealing in liquor is considered to be "Res Extra Commercium". The Act 
prohibits dealing with the said commodity except by way of a licence on the 
terms and conditions mentioned therein. Illegal manufacture, possession, 
transport, export etc. have been brought within the purview of the penal E 
provision contained in Section 55 of the Act. Various new provisions have 
been introduced by way of amendment carried out in the said Act from time to 
time to bring within the purview of the statute the offences which were then 
unknown. [Para I0) [1046-G; 1047-A, B] 
) 
1.3 Section 55 of the Act provides for a penal provision. The words F 
'transport, transit or possession' have been introduced in the said Section by 
Section 4 of the act IO of 1955. By reason of the said amendment, the lacuna 
which existed in the statute thus was sought to be remedied. Even otherwise, 
all the clauses specified in Section 55 of the Act, if read in their entirety, 
'< 
would give rise to a construction that the act of possession is involved in each G 
,. 
one of the activities mentioned in the clauses specified therein. [Para 11] 
(1047-B, CJ 
1 
1.4. A penal statute althoug

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.